Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[kenada]

It doesn't seem that such a process would work well with module play - but presumably if one wanted to play D&D this way then playing a module would be about the furthest thing from what they want.

I’m inclined to agree, but I wanted to work through the example as a way to avoid injecting my own biases and assumptions of how things should work. I find it easier to learn and understand that way.

 

[Umbran]

Stop white-knighting for people who don't need it.

Mod Note:

Please stop telling folks what they can and cannot post.

 

[kenada]

In my experience the likelihood of whatever PCs get interested in and how that unravels falling onto the path of a pre-written adventure is low. It's fine to have a map. It's useful to know something about a few NPCs. Just don't get too attached to any prepped plan. If a zag best follows, follow that zag.

Thanks for the clarification. To put that in the context of the example: if declaring the PCs outlaws is what best follows, then that’s the consequence that should be used even if it means the rest of the prepared adventure is not as (or at all) useful. It would be better for this approach to treat the adventure as an initial state and go from there.

Where I feel concerned is the notion of keeping "the intended arrow of play in mind." Whose intent? If the consequence follows from your group's fiction, makes sense, etc, then that is the arrow of your play.

It’s how strongly should one try to make sure the adventure’s intended beats should be followed. See above for how that pertains to zigging and zagging.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It doesn't seem that such a process would work well with module play - but presumably if one wanted to play D&D this way then playing a module would be about the furthest thing from what they want.

Maybe. I mean, Torchbearer 2 includes the feature that the GM makes maps (of the overall world, possibly of towns as well, though I have not seen that done). The GM also pregenerates a list of obstacles which constitute a given adventure. This will be fairly 'low res' IME, though some details might be pretty nailed down. In general though, if a player can make a check, then they can establish something, like the presence of their ally (this could be very unlikely depending on who the ally is, maybe even impossible). So there's a bit of a hybrid thing going on (and DW also has GM maps and fronts that provide SOME information).

So, I could see maybe playing certain types of modules. I ran one or two pre-written 4e adventures for example. I also had quite a bit of notes and stuff for some sessions of play, especially in my first campaign. I think a module like Phandelver COULD work, its very location-based, and honestly the players can probably do what they want with a lot of it. For example my Dwarf Transmuter took over Cragmaw and created a barony (he also killed the Dragon, or at least disposed of it via a clever ploy). Eventually we did visit all of the module's locations and sorted out the mine, etc. pretty much as-written, but a lot of how things went in our game were pretty much based on what the PCs wanted, not what was in the planned story arc. I'm not sure I would compare it with running Dungeon World, but it was fairly loose for D&D.

I'd also note that we didn't really do any hacking on the rules, or even using suggested optional ones beyond feats and whatever is standard. Mostly the GM just let us 'do stuff' unless it was really dramatic, though I think we could have got a lot of mileage out of partial success! Also I think DW's bonds and alignment and such beat the tar out of BIFTs and Inspiration as written.

 

[Aldarc]

As an addendum to my earlier post: it mainly applies to people who aren't new to discussions. I want to be clear about something. If someone hasn't read Tolkien before or the major works of Marx but wants to jump into a discussion on those topics, that's actually great. I appreciate the eagerness. We have to start somewhere. They're more than welcome. Maybe they will decide to read those books on their own. But it's a bit more grating when it's someone who seemingly has no desire to do their due diligence after a certain point.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There have been a fair number of us who were "on the other side of the fence," so to speak. We only had experience with trad games. We thought that there was little to no difference between these other games in terms of what they invovled. Or maybe we never even thought about it. Games are games, so how different could they be? Then we played things on the boundaries or outside of traditional gaming's "big tent," and it was pretty eye-opening, at least for me. I know that I am not unique in my journey. I recall Ovinomancer and @innerdude recounting similar experiences as well.

This is largely my experience, as well. In discussing RPGs in general here with folks, I realized how little I knew of the hobby beyond D&D and a few other games.

So I listened to people describe those games. When it didn’t make sense to me, I asked questions. If something still didn’t make sense, I didn’t blame anyone else for my incomplete knowledge.

And I actually read a bunch of new games. I’d pick up PDFs on the cheap and read through them. I watched some videos and read some blogs about them. I put in some effort to understand games beyond those with which I was familiar.

And then I played several of them. I’ve run a bunch of different games over the past few years for my home group, and it’s been great. I’m very glad I expanded my base of games that I run and/or play, and my group is very happy about it, too.

Now, I can see why someone may not want to do that. Or at least not all of it. And I understand plenty of folks may read or try other games and simply decide that it’s not for them. That’s fine. But i have to wonder why such folks… who are essentially admitting to having no curiosity about (or perhaps interest in) the wider hobby… would want to be involved in a discussion about the wider hobby.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, I don't think there's anything 'valid' or 'invalid' about people's preferences, they are what they are, generally speaking.

The point I was making was that I think people who dislike some game elements, and explain why, sometimes get pushback that adds up to "You say this is what bothers you, but this other thing you seem okay with does the same thing." I at least insist if someone is going to make that argument they look at the first person's reaction and actually make sure it "does the same thing". There's a fairly bright-line you can draw between resources that are clearly narrative/Authorial in function and things like hit points, which are a big gross simplification of a process but aren't, per se, there to direct narrative control.

Superiority Dice are the resource used by the 5e Battlemaster class. They're a purely abstract resource that completely refreshes at every short rest. I mean, obviously you can color this as 'resting' etc. but fundamentally its not different from 4e Fighter encounter powers (and not really much different from daily ones in this sense). Famously the 4e version are 'dissociated mechanics' or 'purely gamist', but the same criticism is almost never leveled at the 5e version of the same thing! My point being, preferences are HIGHLY contextual, and often less about game analysis and more about gamer politics...

Sure. I'd suspect (with just your description to by) that's an example of a mechanic with a leg in each camp; its probably representing something with an in-game existence, but in a fairly gamist/abstract kind of way that has the player making a decision that doesn't very directly map to anything the character is doing (I'd be interested to know how the 5e Barbarian handles its rage, because that's another case where that's often done that).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thanks for the clarification. To put that in the context of the example: if declaring the PCs outlaws is what best follows, then that’s the consequence that should be used even if it means the rest of the prepared adventure is not as (or at all) useful. It would be better for this approach to treat the adventure as an initial state and go from there.

This is the main reason I have very rarely used published adventures over my gaming career, and usually avoid pre-planning too much in the ones I do myself, unless something in the structure of the game virtually demands it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Now, I can see why someone may not want to do that. Or at least not all of it. And I understand plenty of folks may read or try other games and simply decide that it’s not for them. That’s fine. But i have to wonder why such folks… who are essentially admitting to having no curiosity about (or perhaps interest in) the wider hobby… would want to be involved in a discussion about the wider hobby.

I think there's a bit of a problem with the way you constructed this. I've read any number of game systems I decided were not for me--but that doesn't mean I have no interest in them. There may be only so much depth my interest goes (because some parts of it will only be relevant for people who plan to engage with the systems in play) but I still find discussion, at least in broad, of styles that don't interest me as a player/GM sometimes interesting and sometimes useful, as I can find some elements possibly useful for my own trad/neotrad play. As an example, as I've made it pretty clear, I consider the really hard line of power demarcation between GMs and players a concept that has long since outlived its usefulness, and even if I don't particularly want to go the whole way of eliminating it, moderating it seems virtuous to me; and finding out how games that have already done so (or eliminated it) do so can be instructive.

So I think you're drawing a sharper line here than has to be the case (though I have no idea how many people have my views on this--I sometimes think not too many).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think there's a bit of a problem with the way you constructed this. I've read any number of game systems I decided were not for me--but that doesn't mean I have no interest in them. There may be only so much depth my interest goes (because some parts of it will only be relevant for people who plan to engage with the systems in play) but I still find discussion, at least in broad, of styles that don't interest me as a player/GM sometimes interesting and sometimes useful, as I can find some elements possibly useful for my own trad/neotrad play. As an example, as I've made it pretty clear, I consider the really hard line of power demarcation between GMs and players a concept that has long since outlived its usefulness, and even if I don't particularly want to go the whole way of eliminating it, moderating it seems virtuous to me; and finding out how games that have already done so (or eliminated it) do so can be instructive.

So I think you're drawing a sharper line here than has to be the case (though I have no idea how many people have my views on this--I sometimes think not too many).

But then it would appear you have curiosity about and interest in the wider hobby, wouldn't it?